Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China's Silk Road Illusions

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#61

Post by mcv »

DrScump wrote: post #34
dmix wrote: post #12

I read the entire article and it's a great read. It's fascinating how much we romanticize about past cultures and how much if it is wrong. I love reading history and this almost always turns out to be the case. Digging into any topic reveals they are always far more complex and multilayered than the the common caricatures you find in media and in generalized accounts. China's popular understanding of the Silk Road se…

the KV-1 tank, which grinded Operation Barbarossa to a halt Your own link says the KV-1 represented only 2% of Soviet tanks there. The real key to the Soviet win is that they could endure 3:1 loss ratios and still outdeploy the Nazis at better than 3:1.

In the early stages of the war, the USSR had a lot of very different tanks, some of which were crap, some of which were the best tanks in the world at that time. I don't think any other country had experimented as much with different types of tanks as the USSR had. In production, of course they quickly settled on the tanks that were clearly making the difference: the KV tanks and the T-34.

But even then, the KV tanks were only a small part of their arsenal; the Russians had settled on three different categories of tanks: mobile tanks (their very fast BT tanks using Christie suspension), medium tanks, and heavy tanks. The latter category included the KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, and that was the smallest and most expensive group, but also the group that would always be at the center of any attack or defense.

The reason the T-34 was such an important tank, is that it combined aspects of all three categories; it was intended as a medium tank, but it had Christie suspension like the BT tanks, making it faster than most other medium tanks. And due to its sloping armour, it was almost as tough as a heavy tank (against tanks at least; it was vulnerable from the air). This combination made it the precursor of the Main Battle Tank.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#62

Post by mcv »

DrScump wrote: post #37
the-dude wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The T-34 was better than what the Germans had at the time. The better German tanks came too late and too little, true.

The T-34 was better than what the Germans had at the time. The T-34 platform was more effective because it vastly outnumbered all German tank models combined, ran on diesel, was easier to repair/replace, and the Soviets were willing to absorb more personnel losses. If you're saying you'd rather go into battle with 5 fully operational T-34s than 5 fully operational Tigers, then we seriously disagree.

The Tiger was a response to the T-34. "At the time" means "at the start of the war". Eventually, the T-34 was overshadowed by better tanks, and the war saw enormous advancements in tank technology. Largely due to the Russians, who were ahead in tank technology at the start of the war.

At the start of the war, the Germans had nothing that could touch a T-34. Well, no they had no comparable tank; T-34s are vulnerable from the air, and the Germans had Stukas.

It's worth nothing that due to the need to churn out T-34s at a rapid pace, the quality sometimes suffered, and some T-34s were badly put together. Also, it was a very uncomfortable tank to use, and the turret of that early version was too small.

But assuming I get fully functional T-34s, I'd absolutely prefer to go to war with 5 T-34s than with 5 PzIV-Ds or PzIIIs, which was the best the Germans had at the time.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#63

Post by Gravityloss »

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #57
thablackbull wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I see is that politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment' and not rooted in economic reality - so even if they wanted to, it is hard to make your proposal to the American public, especially with 'America first'. With respect to the Bannon comment, America has unequivocally benefited economically with China; it is merely how America has chosen to distribute the wealth that was…

> politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment' I take it you have not read H.L.Mencken's reporting on party conventions in the 1920s. I was a bit incredulous of delegations cheering speeches by marching around the aisles for ten or twenty minutes, but I suppose there was no point in misreporting that ... No good link in a quick search, but perhaps starting from here: https://www.dclibrary.…

Great link, thank you very much. I didn't even realize such things that are in the text were publicly written then.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#64

Post by chiefalchemist »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9
chiefalchemist wrote: post #7

Of course such projects have risk. Of course there is historical baggage. But while China is building an infrastructure legacy, the USA et al are using its resources to wages multiple wars. It's likely the USA's ROI (if you will) will be increased debt and enemies for years to come. China on the other hand seems hardly interested in such things. The outlook for their ROI is much brighter.

> The outlook for their ROI is much brighter I agree that American ROI on military spending is negative, though the degree to which this is true is debatable. (The American defense industry doubles as a federal jobs and R&D program.) I do not see how China building an expensive, low-throughput transportation mode that is uncompetitive, even without a traversable Arctic Ocean, is productive.

If it helps, think of it as China's man on the moon. It's a trophy the gov can point to. Think of it as a single point of (financial) focus with long term commitment. Now imagine what the USA would do with that money. How is China's choice not productive

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#65

Post by chiefalchemist »

sho wrote: post #36
gozur88 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is using very little of its resources to wage wars. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels. And you're underestimating the extent to which China is making enemies in the South China Sea region. These are countries with potentially significant military capability, too, like the Philippines and Japan, not bands of goat herders.

> Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels No it's not[1]. As a % of the total budget it's around 16%, which is huge. And furthermore the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly not included - they have been funded by "supplemental" spending bills, which total well into the 10 figures. The Philippines doesn't really have a navy worth talking about. Japan can defend i…

In addition, look at China and the North Korea situation. Best I tell, China isn't interested. Sure it has a military. But it's not wanting to get involved unless it's absolutely necessary (despite the USA's insistence they do get involved).

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#66

Post by chiefalchemist »

sho wrote: post #36
gozur88 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is using very little of its resources to wage wars. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels. And you're underestimating the extent to which China is making enemies in the South China Sea region. These are countries with potentially significant military capability, too, like the Philippines and Japan, not bands of goat herders.

> Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels No it's not[1]. As a % of the total budget it's around 16%, which is huge. And furthermore the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly not included - they have been funded by "supplemental" spending bills, which total well into the 10 figures. The Philippines doesn't really have a navy worth talking about. Japan can defend i…

Perhaps. But the USA spends more on "defense" than the next 8 countries combined. Obama said so in his 2016 State of the Union address.

If all but one of those (i.e., Russia) are "friendly" (i.e., most would say China v US is unlikely given the shared financial interests), who / what exactly is the USA so heavily armed for? Is military force as a proxy for diplomacy wise?

So regardless, of the percentage of X or Y it's pretty clear these weapons are an enabler. Yet infrastructure is crumbling? Schools not as competitive? Etc.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#67

Post by dis-sys »

sho wrote: post #36
gozur88 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is using very little of its resources to wage wars. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels. And you're underestimating the extent to which China is making enemies in the South China Sea region. These are countries with potentially significant military capability, too, like the Philippines and Japan, not bands of goat herders.

> Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels No it's not[1]. As a % of the total budget it's around 16%, which is huge. And furthermore the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly not included - they have been funded by "supplemental" spending bills, which total well into the 10 figures. The Philippines doesn't really have a navy worth talking about. Japan can defend i…

it would be considered as suicidal for india to pick up a fight. Chinese can fire cheap guided rockets within its border to hit india's capital, india will have to use long range ballistic missiles to achieve the same.

also note that Chinese design/build/operate advanced weapons like anti satellite missiles, anti aircraft carrier ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launch early warning systems, J-20 stealth fighters, military grade satellite navigation system on its own, india can not even build self-propelled artillery on its own.

Both nations know this full well, that is why there will be long lasting peace in the region/border.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#68

Post by eighthnate »

thablackbull wrote: post #13
chiefalchemist wrote: post #7

Of course such projects have risk. Of course there is historical baggage. But while China is building an infrastructure legacy, the USA et al are using its resources to wages multiple wars. It's likely the USA's ROI (if you will) will be increased debt and enemies for years to come. China on the other hand seems hardly interested in such things. The outlook for their ROI is much brighter.

What we're witnessing today is a chicken-and-egg problem. USA: America is the chicken. To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.). In essence, and to keep it short, the 'free-markets' will take over, and standards of living will boom. China: China is the egg, because they view modernizati…

> To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.).

Rather than immediately following american "style", it is conjectured that you need to be given america's blessing and be allowed in our international world order.

> China: China is the egg, because they view modernization more or less independent (i.e., democracy is not a necessary).

Britain, Japan, Germany, France, etc all modernized when they weren't a democracy. If we are talking post ww2, south korea, taiwan, singapore, etc all modernized while they weren't real democracies.

You could be a dictatorship and still be part of the american world order - saudi arabia, kuwait, SK/taiwan for most of their history.

> that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.

Modernization doesn't require data points. It's simply a political choice. As long as a major power isn't actively preventing you from modernizing, any country can modernize. It's simply a matter of political stability and investing in education and industry.

What makes china unique is that they are building institutions outside of the US world order ( AIIB, RCEP, BRICS, SCO and of course the belt and road initiative ).

https://www.brookings.edu/research/chinas-emerging-instituti...

But world order doesn't necessarily have anything to do with modernization.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#69

Post by sho »

dis-sys wrote: post #67
sho wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels No it's not[1]. As a % of the total budget it's around 16%, which is huge. And furthermore the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly not included - they have been funded by "supplemental" spending bills, which total well into the 10 figures. The Philippines doesn't really have a navy worth talking about. Japan can defend i…

it would be considered as suicidal for india to pick up a fight. Chinese can fire cheap guided rockets within its border to hit india's capital, india will have to use long range ballistic missiles to achieve the same. also note that Chinese design/build/operate advanced weapons like anti satellite missiles, anti aircraft carrier ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launch early warning systems, J-20 stealth fighter…

Chinese and Indian troops clash all the time! Most recently is the "Doklam" dispute [1] where they share a border with Bhutan. Last I heard they were literally throwing rocks at each other (not a joke). There's no love lost between the countries, that's for sure.

But I do agree that neither will risk a major confrontation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_borde...

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#70

Post by eighthnate »

jcranmer wrote: post #33
dmix wrote: post #12

I read the entire article and it's a great read. It's fascinating how much we romanticize about past cultures and how much if it is wrong. I love reading history and this almost always turns out to be the case. Digging into any topic reveals they are always far more complex and multilayered than the the common caricatures you find in media and in generalized accounts. China's popular understanding of the Silk Road se…

> Particularly with how Germany really lost the war to the Soviets in late 1942 when they failed to subdue Russia in the early invasion. The west (US/UK/Canada) largely just cleaned up the mess from 1943-45, as the Nazi's were fighting an impossible war after that point. Even then Russia did most of the work in terms of raw combat. But even when this is noted in history books Russia's success is largely dismissed as…

> the USSR's side was largely propped up by the US lend-lease program

This is an oft repeated lie we tell ourselves. US contribution to USSR's military production was less than 1%. And by the time our "help" reached the soviet union, the soviets had already beaten the germans.

The battle of moscow ended in January 1942. That's when ww2 in europe was over. The rest was brutal clean up duty by the soviets.

> Without such support, the USSR would have faced the same problem that Germany did: a critical inability to properly supply their front-line troops.

Firstly, germany's problem was lack of oil. Not the number of trucks. Secondly, The soviet military industry was the largest in the world until we joined the war and their military production was never affected. And the soviets had tons of oil. Only second to the US.

The lend-lease history saving the soviet union is propaganda. If we had stayed neutral in ww2, the soviets would have beaten the germans. Other than stalin giving up, there was no way for germany to beat the soviet union. Look at the stats.

Post reply on HN